- Email: [email protected]
Planning for permanency planning in foster care
Planning for Permanency Planning in Foster Care Darryl E. Ward Jane Hamilton Edith Fein Child & Family Services, Hartford, Connecticut
and
Anthony Maluccio University of Connecticut
Inc.
The perceived severity of the problem of “drift” in the foster care system has encouraged agencies nationwide to accept permanency planning, but perhaps with limited attention to the planning process. This article examines the phenomenon of permanency planning from a planning perspective by focusing on: (a) definition of the permanency planning problem, (b) understanding of issues relevant to permanency planning (caseworker, program and systemic), (c) appreciation of the operational context (political, economic and social factors), and (d) evaluation of available options and possible consequences in developing or improving a permanency planning program. Permanency planning is not a simple, ready-made program it involves coordmated efforts by applicable to any situation; workers, service systems, and society in general, and requires time, commitment and resources. Successful planning for permanency planning can permit more children to grow up in homes providing continuity and stability.
Much support has surfaced for permanency planning as a viable solution to the problem of “drift” existing in the foster care system. Preparation of this article was supported bk- Grant So. 90-C-1794. ‘Outcomes of Permanency Planning in Foster Care,’ from the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health, and Human Services. Requests for reprints may be addressed to Darryl E. LL’ard. Child and Family Services. Inc., 1680 Albany Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06105.
223
224
Ward, Hamilton,
Fein and Maluccio
This support is the outcome of t1v.o interrelated factors: (a) the belief that e\.ery child should hax,e the opportunity to grow up in a family setting that offers to the child both permanency’ and Ionglasting stable relationships. and (b) the ackno~\~ledgment that most children in foster care in the United States are “drifting” because permanent plans haye not been made for them (cf. Downs, 198 1. p. 1.5). Increasingly, public and private child r\.elfare agencies ha\.e been implementmg or considering various permanency planning programs or approaches (Fanshel k Shinn, 1978). Limited attention, hoLv.ever, has been given to the planning process itself. Planning can begin as a result of different factors and cti\,erse motivations: Planning begins \vith a problem, a widely-felt need, major dissatisfaction, or crisis. Or, it begins with a transfer of po\\.er and the decisions of new leadership to systematize their activities. Or, it begins bvith the urgent need to allocate scarce resources or personnel. Or, it begins i\.ith a demand from a source of funds or of poFver that planmng .be done to qualify for continued subsidy. Or, it begins \\.ith the access to considerable new resources . . . Or, finally it is undertaken because “everybody is doing it. (Kahn, 1969, p.12)
In child welfare, the perceived severity of the problem of “drift” has undoubtedly encouraged agencies nationwide to accept permanency planning. As suggested by Kahn in the preceding quote, the urgency felt to implement permanency planning often competes with time needed to anticipate and plan for it in an effective and efficient manner. This article examines permanency planning from a more general planning perspective. Its purpose is to highlight guidelines that may be useful to agency administrators interested in deyeloping or improving permanency planning programs for children in their care. What is Permanency
Planning?
Child welfare practitioners haye increasingly recognized the importance of making case plans designed to provide stability and continuity of relationships for each child. In fact, there is some feeling that permanency planning is not a new or unique approach. There is no doubt, ho\v.ever, that in recent years there has been increased commitment to the goal of permanency planning. This interest has been promoted by the landmark Oregon Project, which has stressed research, demonstration of service delivery,,
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
225
training, and consultation in permanency planning (Dohvns. 198 1; Emlen, Lahti, Downs, XIcKay, & Downs, 1977; Lahti, Green, Emlen, Zadny, Clarkson, Kuehnel, & Casciato, 1978; Pike, 1976). The growing commitment to permanency planning is also reflected in the newly enacted federal Public Law 962i2 (the Adoption Xssistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980), w.hich emphasizes prevention and reunification services to families, greater efforts to find permanent homes for children Lvho cannot return to their biological families, and adoption assistance for children with special needs. As discussed elservhere (Maluccio, Fein, Hamilton, Klier, 8i Ward, 1980), there is no consensus on what is meant by permanency planning. A review of the literature shows that this term has been applied, to such aspects as a philosophical commitment to the vital role of the family in a child’s development; a case management method; a program to reduce the number of children in temporary care; a set of attitudes about the needs of children; and techniques for meeting these needs (hlaluccio et al., 19S0, p. 319). While further clarification of this concept is needed, one definition of permanency planning “refers to the idea of removing the child as soon as possible out of temporary substitute care and returning him or her to the biological family as the preferred alternative, or to an adoption home as the second priority, or if necessary to another permanent alternative such as a fan& with legal guardianship” (hlaluccio et al., 1980). A+nother view ‘is that the overall objective of permanency planning is to decrease the number of children who are inuppropriatul~ placed in foster care. There is serious disagreement on this point, and many regard foster care as appropriate only for temporaq placement of a child. Permanency planning may be viewed both narroivly as a case management method and broadly as an agency program. As a method for managing cases, it “means looking at ivhat a child needs in order to maintain or establish permanency, then implementing a plan which will provide for that stability and permanence” (Jones & Biesecket-, 1979, p. 3). The casexvorker must assess each child’s situation and then determine the optimum permanent placement for that child (Jones & Biesecker, 1979). The caseworker must be goal-oriented and decisive in behalf of the completion of that plan. In its broader meaning, permanency planning involves a specific program designed to decrease the total number of children’in temporary foster care. As a program, it incorporates the case management technique of permanency planning, but has three other components that are necessary for its success: (a) a \\4lingness of
Ward,
226
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
central administration to identify permanency planning as a top priority; (b) the existence of a comprehensi\,e case review system; and (c) the availability to workers of additional resources, including consultation, training, etc. (cf. Jones, 1978). The focus of this article is on permanency planning as a program, considering the follo\ving areas, which will be discussed separately: (a) identifying the problem at hand; (b) understanding issues relevant to permanency planning; (c) appreciating the operational context within which one must work: and (d) evaluating available options and possible consequences.’ The authors assume that permanency planning is a desired solution to the problem of drift of children in foster care, as demonstrated by various studies (Downs, 1981; Lahti et al., 1975: Stein; Gambrill, & Il’iltse, 1978). Furthermore, they believe that permanency planning involves not only the placement of a child in a stable or permanent plan, but also the provision of services and support necessary to maintain him or her in that plan. Problem
Identification
Successful permanency planning is dependent on a clear understanding of possible problem areas. Since caseworker involvement, and system support for that involvement, are the key elements in permanency planning, it is important to identify r\,hich of those areas are most in need of support. Priorities must be set to deal with the needed support in each area, and plans must be made to enable each to mesh l\ith the other to implement the permanency planning process. Understanding
Relevant
Issues
Much of the interest and confidence in permanency planning is a result of the Oregon Project, rvhich demonstrated that their special services more closely approached the goal of finding permanent placement for children in foster care than the agency’s regular casework activity (Emlen et al., 1977). Other studies, notably the Alameda Project (Stein et al., 1978) have also shown that intensive services to biological parents are effective in removing children from temporary care and achieving permanent plans such as reunification or adopuon. Typical social work activity often does not recognize barriers ‘These factors reflect the kev components of planning. Kahn (1969) and Xlorris and Binstock (1966).
as formulated
bv theorists
such
as
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
227
involving caseworker, programming, and systemic issues that can impede the development of a permanency planning program. As these impediments are removed, permanency planning can become a regular rather than a special focus of practice. Caseworker Issues. Because caseworkers are the crucial instigaabout planning possibilities tors of permanency plans, “decisions for the foster child are a function of their information and optimism, their attitudes and opinions, their decisiveness and experience, and their perception of the constraints under which they operate” (Regional Research Institute, 1976). The Oregon Project, for example, discovered that caseworkers are less optimistic about permanency planning as the child gets older (Regional Research Institute, 1976). There is also evidence that the possibility of adoption of the older, handicapped, or minority child is dependent on the caseworker’s attitudes (Temporary State Commission on Child Welfare, 1977); the difficulty of placing severely handicapped children in adoptive homes leads practitioners to believe that permanency planning is not making a difference. It has also been found that caseworkers’ “on the job” experience is related to the type of permanent placement that they think should be encouraged. LVhile the inexperienced worker tends to favor adoption as an exit from foster care, the experienced worker is more likely to choose residential treatment, other foster family placements, or return of the child to the family (Regional Research Institute, 1976). The decision about a placement plan is thus affected by the variety of skills, educational background, and values of the worker; in addition, the process of implementing that decision may also be varied. Attitudes, experiences, skills, and background are influential factors in all steps of permanency planning. Programming Issues. Program and policy issues may appear as barriers when planning for permanency planning. For example, decisions need to be made about who should be participating in permanency planning-administration, staff, clients, as well as what the target population should be. The Oregon Project included children who were under the age of twelve: “Children over twelve . . . were not included in the project because older foster children were considered to present greater barriers to permanent placement” (Emlen et al., 1977, p. 20). Since more than 50% of all foster care children are twelve and over (Knitzer, Allen, & McGowan, 1978), there must be increased attention to the needs of older children. This presents a policy decision that must be made
228
Ward,
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
about the needs of older children in relation to the desirability of moving >.ounger children as quickl!, as possible. Caseload size. particularly the number of active cases, is a further consideration. The Oregon Project staff “became convinced that tvorkers cvere most effecti1.e i>.hen handling about fifteen cases at a time, although during the project the>, had as man:, as thirtv-five” (Emlen et al., 1977, p. 30). ;LIany caseworkers have caseloads much larger than this (Knitzer et al., 1978), and there is no clear evidence that caseload size is correlated Lt,ith outcomes such as permanence. Permanency planning calls for increased caseworker activity in tvorking l\.ith biological parents or w.orking to%\rards acloptlon (Drever, 1978). It also emphasizes planful activitv in non-crisis situations. Instead of maintaining a “roof over” the child, the Fvorker needs to plan and act for the future. This does not mean, however, that the total time spent on a case necessarily increases. It may well be that worker time and energies are used more efficiently once a clear objective and an explicit plan are formulated. The introduction of permanency planning as a deliberate approach further requires that there is an “expert” available to pass on knol\vledge to the caseivorkers. This suggests the need for trainand for flexible and open communication ing, for supervision, channels. Policy guidelines also are needed to reinforce permanency planning goals. Caseworkers are constantly faced with controversial issues such as: (a) il’hat are the criteria that determine l\,hether a child, who has been in care with one foster family for several years, should be permanently placed elsewhere? (b) Should a child currently placed i\ith elderly relatives (e.g., grandparents) be considered for a more permanent placement elservhere? If so, t%.hen should this placement occur? and (c) How is the value of “continuity of relationships” reconciled lvith the desire “to move a child and (give) that child a permanent legal home” (Krynow, 1979, p. 103). Case-by-case decisions will not encourage the development of a permanency planning philosophy. Systemic Issues. Other barriers to permanency planning that mav exist require changes not only in the foster care system, but alsd in the legal, adoptive, and social service spheres. For example, as caseworkers plan adoption for more foster children, expanded adoptive services or retooling of existing services will be needed. “Without staff and vigorous effort to place children with special needs. a bottleneck can develop” (Emlen et al., 1977, p. 116); more children may become available for adoption while the number of
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
229
remains the same. adoptive homes stilling to accept the children Though such a shortage of adoptive homes may be counteracted by active recruitment the number of available adoptive homes depends on the screening process for potential adoptive parents, the lvillingness of adoptive parents to accept the difficult-to-place child, and more flexible agency criteria for adoptive families. Another systemic issue is the recent emphasis on permanently placing a child back with his or her parent(s). Since as many as 32% of all foster children have been in temporary care for ttvo or more years (Knitzer et al., 1978), families lvill have difficult adjustments to make. Even if there \l.ere parental or sibling contacts with the child while in foster care, the situation is drasticallt altered t\.hen the biological family again becomes the permanent home for the child. The biological parent(s), siblings and foster child(ren) ma) need special services and a variety of social supports to cope and alleviate stressful problems. Furthermore. “much of this intensive r\,ork with families is for naught if adequate housing, income, da\ care and homemaker services cannot be obtained when needed” (Jones, 1976, p. lo).’ X further issue concerns the legal s!-stem. An increase in plans for adoption increase the need for legal assistance and court hearings. Lawyers and judges are being asked more often to make permanency decisions in which they may lack expertise (Emlen et al., 1977). As more caseworkers attempt to obtain termination of parental rights or establish adoption status, the court backlog stretches further. Studies have shown that “there were often delays in getting the hearing date set, summonses issued, and witnesses prepared, and further delays were caused by continuances, postthe time of hearing and anponements, and lon, u svaits between nouncement of the judge’s decision” (Emlen et al., 1977, p.61). The procurement of a permanent placement for a foster child is strongly dependent upon the legal system, its statutes, and its ability to process and enforce decisions. &lore effective relationships bettveen social agencies and judges and attorneys are therefore crucial. There are also problems in the area of funding. Until now, financial support for foster care has been more readily available than for preventive services, supportive programs for biological parents, or after care services (Knitzer et al., 19’78). This systemic barrier may have encouraged agencies to place a child in foster care as the most expedient solution to the family’s problem. It has been argued that public policy and service delivery in child ivelfare ‘See Maluccio and Sinanoglu biological parents of children
(I98 1) for extensive in foster care.
dircussion
of social
~\.ork practice
\\Gth
Ward,
230
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
reflect a deep anti-familv bias bv providing incenti\,es to agencies to keep children in foster care r&her than returning them to their biological families (Knitzer et al., 1978; Pare Cy:Torczyner, 1977). The funding problem may be alleviated as a result of the previously mentioned federal “Adoption Assistance and Child Flyelfare Act of 1980,” if sufficient funds are appropriatecl by the go\‘ernment. It is likelv, however, that tvavs uill still need to be found to influence fund&g bodies by demonstrating, for instance, the potential cost benefit of supportive services for parents. These and other caseworker, programming, and systemic issues should be considered in the planning process. Efforts to resolve them prior to program establishment allow for more time to deal with unexpected problems. Appreciating
the Operational
Context
It is crucial to evaluate the political, economic and social structure within which a program functions. In each of these areas, a number of questions may be posed that ha1.e relevance to the planning process. Political Factors-Power and Authority. While staff mai. be enthusiastic about permanency planning, the agency’s policies and guidelines may be supporting other priorities or programs that mitigate against the staff’s casekvork activities. Power and authorit! issues need to be recognized and handled. Among the questions t& be considered are: -FVhat is the present political power base of the administration; is it well-established, newlv formed, undergoing reorganization, reorganized? -How does the administration feel about change and innovative programs? -Are the goals of permanency planning compatible it.ith the goals set by the administration? -U’hat rank would permanency planning have among other priorities? --Who is/are in the best position to plan for permanent) planning? --Who is/are in the best position to organize for permanent) planning? -Who has the authority/power/influence to coordinate permanency planning among the varied social services? -Are there changes occurring in other service systems that may affect the implementation of permanency plans?
Permanency --\iVhen planning?
Planning is a good
231
in Foster Care time
to begin
establishing
permanent)
Economic Factors. Among the crucial funding questions are: -Can existing funds be reallocated to help support permanent planning efforts? -N’ill additional funds be needed for setting up or expanding the program? -Will further funds be needed throughout the life span of the program? --Will additional expenditure be offset by potential cost benefits, such as those that could result from discontinuing current non-productive activities and reducing the duration of foster care placements as well as the total number of children in care? --What are the chances of acquiring funds? ---What channels exist for securing funds? -For how long can funds be safely secured?
Numerous questions arise in respect to the soSocial Factors. cial structure in which a program must operate, such as: -How much agreement is there among workers that a problem exists in the foster care system? --What is the level of frustration, morale, and optimism of workers? -How receptive are ivorkers to making changes in their tvork patterns? --What should be the nature of change-rapid or incremental? -What is the level of resistance/commitment if one lvere to introduce permanency planning to workers? -How aware is the general public of the problems found in the foster care system? -How committed is the public to alleviating “drift” in foster care? -How strong are society’s values about parent-child ties? -How enthusiastic is the public for making changes? Evaluating
Available
Options
and Possible
Consequences
Decision-making and planning are not necessarilv orderly, rational processes. On the contrary, numerous factors influence the planning process. However, to the extent that is possible, establishing a program requires planful action that chooses among available options. Some of those that may be faced in permanency planning will be discussed below, to illustrate the planning process. This list
232
Ward,
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
is not exhaustive; other options may be assailable in a particular agency or community setting and need to be identified and etxluated before choices are made. I/t7hich children should be i,lz~olzled in permctr~enc~ planning? In implementing a permanency planning program, there are a number of options in regard to the target population: 1. All children in foster care. 2. Children of a specified age. 3. Children selected by date of entrv into the svstem. 4. Children included according to the number of cases that caseworkers/teams are able to handle. Though it may seem desirable to include all children in foster care, choosing a more specific target group may lead to expertise in planning for children who share a common bond (e.g., age, date of entry, handicap). A further consideration is whether permanency planning is already being done for relatively simple cases: if this 1s true, there may be a need to concentrate on the more difficult cases, although all cases may need further planning efforts. An>; option chosen should recognize that permanency planning may mcrease casetvorker time and activity per child. Each option also has implications for training of staff. For instance, if the client target group consists primarily of children whose restoration to the parents is unlikely, training relating to termination of parental rights is especially critical. Who should be trained in doing permanenq plannirlgl Training issues involve funding considerations as well as communication and information-sharing questions. Each of the following options has advantages and disadvantages: 1. A special unit of permanency planning F\-orkers created by reorganizing staff. 2. A special unit of permanency planning \\.orkers created by hiring additional staff. 3. All foster care workers. 4. Selected foster care Fvorkers. team. 5. A multidisciplinary By creating a special unit of permanency planning ivorkers through the reorganization of available staff, the need for initial training concerning agency policies and procedures is reduced. With this option, however, the unit is separated by tasks from other workers, which may lead to less information-sharing. The task of the responsibility of this special permanency planning remains
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
233
unit, and communication concerning permanence planning F\ith other service systems (adoptive, legal, t\.elfare, etc.j is limited to the permanencv planning unit’s contribution. If additional staff are hired in order to create a special unit, Neiv t\.orkers not familiar tt.ith additional funding is necessary. agency procedures will require’extra training. Their attitudes and values may differ from those already exposed to the foster care system and communication problems may result. The option of training all foster care i\.orkers bvould result in everyone having a common bond of knowledge, which would encourage permanency planning in every case. The validity of this option depends on the agency’s need for permanencv planning, the number of workers that lvould have to be trained, and time available for them to take on permanency planning responsibilities without letting other work activities suffer. Training only a selected group of workers would result in the difficulty of routing cases to a caseworker who may not be as visible as a separate permanency planning unit. The responsibility of implementing the permanent plan would fall on the worker hvho ma? have been chosen for exceptional skills, but at the same time it would place the task of referral on all case\vorkers. The last option, a multidisciplinary team, such as a permanency planning committee, l\.ould strengthen the “monitoring of foster care cases in a ivay that allows attention to the individual circumstances of the child and family” (Forsythe, 1979, p.4). Currently, both Tarant County, Texas (Grape, 1979) and several counties in North Dakota emphasize “a multidisciplinary and multi-agency approach” for implementing permanency planning (Schmid, 1979, p.5). “Team review of cases, moreover, offers caseworkers support and training and is a procedure that can bring the i\.orker re\vard for effort expended” (Forsythe, 1979, p.4). This approach also acts as a catalyst for coordinating different services within an agency as well as among different agencies. The availability of funds is an important influence on the decision of whether to expand or reorganize the staff in forming teams. Furthermore, a decision about the amount of communication and information-sharing desired can help determine whether the permanency planning team should be a special unit or a conglomerate of professionals. What kind of staff training is necessaq? There are at least five options to explore in the training area: 1. Training over a short period of time by outside consultant(s). 2. Training over a longer period of time by outside consultant(s).
234
Ward, Hamilton,
Fein and Maluccio
3.
Training over a short period of time by person(s) accessible lkithin own setting. 4. Training over a long period of time by person(s) accessible ikithin 0Ft.n setting. 5. Combining outside consultants tvith inside persons. The first four options are concerned \\.ith the time span of training. N’hile the shorter time allows for more intensive training, the longer period provides \\.orkers with the opportunity to begm using permanency planning techniques and bring up questions at later training sessions. The advantages of either time span depend on the urgency of developing or expanding the permanency planning program. Whether the permanency planning “expert” who is providing the teaching resources is an outside consultant to the program or someone wthin the system can affect the availability of information and consultation. N’hile the person within the system may have a good background in agency policies, he or she may also have other responsibilities (e.g., for his/her olvn caseload) or constraints (e.g., be’ing defined by his/her present position in the present system) that may hamper the permanency planning task. The consultant, on the other hand, may only be available at particular times, but may have more familiarity Fvith a variety of systems and options and prior experience in the process of implementing permanency planning. Underlying all the options is the importance of identifywithin reach, from ivithin as \\.ell as outside the ing the “experts” agency. Training should be addressed not only to knowledge and skills, but also to attitudinal and value issues. For example, it should be emphasized that permanency planning means a commitment to strong efforts to reunite child and parents before alternative plans are considered. How encouraged?
can
system-wide,
in&a-agency
coordination
be
The number of people responsible for coordinating services within an agency system is of critical importance. The) influence the amount of direct communication and informationsharing possible. The two options are: 1. hlultidisciplinary team. 2. Intra-agency manager/coordinator. The multidisciplinary team approach can provide “a good foundation for coordinating and implementing some new programs” (Schmid, 1979, p. 1). It encourages a variety of professionals to work together to implement permanency plans and allot\.s them to confer with other colleagues about their experiences. It
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
235
also increases the likelihood of changes within the other service ststems outside the agency, since those on the team who work v(ithin those systems have esperiences that suggest the need for change. The intra-agency manager/coordinator, on the other hand, staff position that most typically would be fillin, u a newlv created may require time to gain familiarity viith procedures and policies, establish rapport with the workers and administrators, and anticipate ways of completing tasks. Change vvithin the agency would be highfy dependent on communication skills; the managericoordinator would need to be highly visible to those workers seeking assistance, and the implementatton of permanency plans would be the result of the manager/coordinator successfully carrying out appropriate tasks. Hou are total sewices increased? Due to the nature of permanency planning, expanded services often need to be provided. Along with consideration of reallocation of resources and discontinuance of unproductive activities, possibilities for increasing the variety of services are: 1. Increase staff (adoptive, legal, welfare . . . ). 2. Increase coordination among agencies in order to decrease duplication. 3. Decide the priority of services to be provided. Hiring more staff requires additional training and superv.ision, as well as increased funding. The second option, of using time more efficiently bv better coordination, assumes that there 1s duplication of services. The third choice, of providing only certain services, frees more time but forces consideration of two questions: (1) Are the services provided absolutely necessary? and (2) Are the services given by those who are most competent?
Summary
and Conclusions
Recommendations about implementing permanency planning need to take into account the relevant caseworker, programming, and systemic issues along with the political, economic, and social structures that constitute the operational context. Decisions about which options are most suitable should reflect v\.hat is feasible and acceptable to a particular situation. Once long-range goals are established and then described in manageable, progressive steps apt to promote successful program implementation, care must be taken to maintain continual Aexibility in case procedures and policies in the event of unexpected
236
Ward, Hamilton,
Fein and Maluccio
situations. In this sense. permanency planning is an ongoing process subject to continual review and change. Furthermore, both staff and the general public need to understand the reasons for permanency planning and to believe that it is a viable solution. Resistance to change has been found to be “least in the groups in which those to be affected discussed the nature of the change, laid plans for making it, and as a total group made decisions which were satisfactory to the entire group” (Zander, 1970, p.235). Because of the scope of action and services that permanency planning covers, it is important to consider whether there is enough motivation to follow through on such a program, not only within the agency but also in the broader communitv. Successful permanency planning involves ongoing coordinated efforts by practitioners, foster parent organizations, biological parents groups, service systems, and society in general to plan for and implement actions that allow more children to grow up in homes providing continuity and stabiliby. It is not a simple, read?;made program applicable to any situation, but is one that necessltates serious thought and commitment. Indeed, “permanency plan(Krymo’c~‘, 1979, p.103), but is ning . . . is not easily achieved” \sGthin reach if one has time, commitment, and resources to plan and implement effectively. References Downs,
S. M’. Foster
Dissemination
cure
reform
in the 70’s:
Final
report
Project.
Portland, OR: Regional State C‘niversity, 198 1.
of the Permanenc_y
Research
Institute
for
Planning H~~rnan
Services, Portland Dreyer, L. Permanent planning in foster care-.4 guide fur program planners. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1978. Emlen, A., Lahti, J., Dolvns. G., 5lcKay, A., &z Dottms, S. Oz~ew~vling barriers to planning for children in foster care. Portland. OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1977. Fanshel, D., S: Shinn, E. B. Children infoster care--.-i longitudinal ixcrsti,gatiotr. NeF\ York: Columbia University Press. 1978. Forsythe, P. As quoted in Case Record, November 1979, 3, 4. Grape, H. Fort JVorth’s permanent planning team. Cuse Record, 1979, 3, 3-4. Jones, hl. A. Reducing foster care through serz’ices to families. Children Todq, 1976* 5, 6-10.
Jones,
hl. L., & Biesecker,
nency planning
guide for
J, Goal planning children
and Jouth
in children
and wuth ser,aicrs and PermrcAlillersvile, PA: Training Re(TRIPP), hIillersville State College,
services.
sources in Permanent Planning Project 1979. Jones, M. L. Stopping foster care drift: A review grams. Child N’elfare, 37, 1978, 371-580.
of legislation
and special
pro-
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
237
Knitzer, J., Allen. AI. L., k XlcGowan. B. CMtlw~ r~/~hou~/wtnu~. it’ashington. D.C.: Children’s Defense Fund, 1978. Krymow, V. L. Obstacles encountered in permanent planning for foster children. Child I\‘e+r~, 1979, 48, 97-104. Lahti. J.. Green, K., Emlen. A.. Zadny, J., Clarkson, Q., Kuehnel. XI.. & Cnsciato, J. A[oUowr$ jtr$v o/the Oregon Project. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1978. Xlaluccio, A. X., Fein. E., Hamilton. J., Klier, J. L.. K_ \Vard, D. Beyond permanency planning. Child Lt’elfure, 19S0, 59. 5 155Y0. Maluccio. A. S., & Sinanoglu. P. .I. (Eds.). The chcdlenge ofpartnership_Cl'orking with parents of children in fo.rter cure. Sew York: Child LVelfare League of America, 1991. Morris, R., iy- Binstock, R. Fecwble planning for social chmge. Sew York and London: Columbia University Press, 1966. Pare, A., & Torczyner, J. The interests of children and the interests of the state: Rethinking the conflict betrveen child welfare policy and foster care practice. Jourrlal of Sociolog and Social IVelfnf-e, 197i. 4, 124-L-1245. Pike, V. Permanent plannin g for foster children: The Oregon Project. Children Todq, 1976, i, 22-23341. Regional Research Institute for Human Services. Barriers to plarlnirlg for chi/dren in foster care. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1976. Schmid, D. Sorth Dakota’s permanency planning committees. CUM Record, 1979, 3, 4-6. Stein, T. J., Gambrill, E. D., & \\Itse, K. T. Children in foster homes-.Achieuiy continrutv of care. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975. Temporari State Commission on Child \\‘elfare. The children of the state--lncentisres to ndoptiue placements. Report Submitted to Kerv York State Governor and Legislature bp Hon. Joseph Pisani, Chairman, February, 1977. Zander. A. Resistance to change. In H. A. Schatz (Ed.), Sociul work adminutral~on. New York: Council on Social \\‘ork Education. 1970.
and
Anthony Maluccio University of Connecticut
Inc.
The perceived severity of the problem of “drift” in the foster care system has encouraged agencies nationwide to accept permanency planning, but perhaps with limited attention to the planning process. This article examines the phenomenon of permanency planning from a planning perspective by focusing on: (a) definition of the permanency planning problem, (b) understanding of issues relevant to permanency planning (caseworker, program and systemic), (c) appreciation of the operational context (political, economic and social factors), and (d) evaluation of available options and possible consequences in developing or improving a permanency planning program. Permanency planning is not a simple, ready-made program it involves coordmated efforts by applicable to any situation; workers, service systems, and society in general, and requires time, commitment and resources. Successful planning for permanency planning can permit more children to grow up in homes providing continuity and stability.
Much support has surfaced for permanency planning as a viable solution to the problem of “drift” existing in the foster care system. Preparation of this article was supported bk- Grant So. 90-C-1794. ‘Outcomes of Permanency Planning in Foster Care,’ from the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health, and Human Services. Requests for reprints may be addressed to Darryl E. LL’ard. Child and Family Services. Inc., 1680 Albany Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06105.
223
224
Ward, Hamilton,
Fein and Maluccio
This support is the outcome of t1v.o interrelated factors: (a) the belief that e\.ery child should hax,e the opportunity to grow up in a family setting that offers to the child both permanency’ and Ionglasting stable relationships. and (b) the ackno~\~ledgment that most children in foster care in the United States are “drifting” because permanent plans haye not been made for them (cf. Downs, 198 1. p. 1.5). Increasingly, public and private child r\.elfare agencies ha\.e been implementmg or considering various permanency planning programs or approaches (Fanshel k Shinn, 1978). Limited attention, hoLv.ever, has been given to the planning process itself. Planning can begin as a result of different factors and cti\,erse motivations: Planning begins \vith a problem, a widely-felt need, major dissatisfaction, or crisis. Or, it begins with a transfer of po\\.er and the decisions of new leadership to systematize their activities. Or, it begins bvith the urgent need to allocate scarce resources or personnel. Or, it begins i\.ith a demand from a source of funds or of poFver that planmng .be done to qualify for continued subsidy. Or, it begins \\.ith the access to considerable new resources . . . Or, finally it is undertaken because “everybody is doing it. (Kahn, 1969, p.12)
In child welfare, the perceived severity of the problem of “drift” has undoubtedly encouraged agencies nationwide to accept permanency planning. As suggested by Kahn in the preceding quote, the urgency felt to implement permanency planning often competes with time needed to anticipate and plan for it in an effective and efficient manner. This article examines permanency planning from a more general planning perspective. Its purpose is to highlight guidelines that may be useful to agency administrators interested in deyeloping or improving permanency planning programs for children in their care. What is Permanency
Planning?
Child welfare practitioners haye increasingly recognized the importance of making case plans designed to provide stability and continuity of relationships for each child. In fact, there is some feeling that permanency planning is not a new or unique approach. There is no doubt, ho\v.ever, that in recent years there has been increased commitment to the goal of permanency planning. This interest has been promoted by the landmark Oregon Project, which has stressed research, demonstration of service delivery,,
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
225
training, and consultation in permanency planning (Dohvns. 198 1; Emlen, Lahti, Downs, XIcKay, & Downs, 1977; Lahti, Green, Emlen, Zadny, Clarkson, Kuehnel, & Casciato, 1978; Pike, 1976). The growing commitment to permanency planning is also reflected in the newly enacted federal Public Law 962i2 (the Adoption Xssistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980), w.hich emphasizes prevention and reunification services to families, greater efforts to find permanent homes for children Lvho cannot return to their biological families, and adoption assistance for children with special needs. As discussed elservhere (Maluccio, Fein, Hamilton, Klier, 8i Ward, 1980), there is no consensus on what is meant by permanency planning. A review of the literature shows that this term has been applied, to such aspects as a philosophical commitment to the vital role of the family in a child’s development; a case management method; a program to reduce the number of children in temporary care; a set of attitudes about the needs of children; and techniques for meeting these needs (hlaluccio et al., 19S0, p. 319). While further clarification of this concept is needed, one definition of permanency planning “refers to the idea of removing the child as soon as possible out of temporary substitute care and returning him or her to the biological family as the preferred alternative, or to an adoption home as the second priority, or if necessary to another permanent alternative such as a fan& with legal guardianship” (hlaluccio et al., 1980). A+nother view ‘is that the overall objective of permanency planning is to decrease the number of children who are inuppropriatul~ placed in foster care. There is serious disagreement on this point, and many regard foster care as appropriate only for temporaq placement of a child. Permanency planning may be viewed both narroivly as a case management method and broadly as an agency program. As a method for managing cases, it “means looking at ivhat a child needs in order to maintain or establish permanency, then implementing a plan which will provide for that stability and permanence” (Jones & Biesecket-, 1979, p. 3). The casexvorker must assess each child’s situation and then determine the optimum permanent placement for that child (Jones & Biesecker, 1979). The caseworker must be goal-oriented and decisive in behalf of the completion of that plan. In its broader meaning, permanency planning involves a specific program designed to decrease the total number of children’in temporary foster care. As a program, it incorporates the case management technique of permanency planning, but has three other components that are necessary for its success: (a) a \\4lingness of
Ward,
226
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
central administration to identify permanency planning as a top priority; (b) the existence of a comprehensi\,e case review system; and (c) the availability to workers of additional resources, including consultation, training, etc. (cf. Jones, 1978). The focus of this article is on permanency planning as a program, considering the follo\ving areas, which will be discussed separately: (a) identifying the problem at hand; (b) understanding issues relevant to permanency planning; (c) appreciating the operational context within which one must work: and (d) evaluating available options and possible consequences.’ The authors assume that permanency planning is a desired solution to the problem of drift of children in foster care, as demonstrated by various studies (Downs, 1981; Lahti et al., 1975: Stein; Gambrill, & Il’iltse, 1978). Furthermore, they believe that permanency planning involves not only the placement of a child in a stable or permanent plan, but also the provision of services and support necessary to maintain him or her in that plan. Problem
Identification
Successful permanency planning is dependent on a clear understanding of possible problem areas. Since caseworker involvement, and system support for that involvement, are the key elements in permanency planning, it is important to identify r\,hich of those areas are most in need of support. Priorities must be set to deal with the needed support in each area, and plans must be made to enable each to mesh l\ith the other to implement the permanency planning process. Understanding
Relevant
Issues
Much of the interest and confidence in permanency planning is a result of the Oregon Project, rvhich demonstrated that their special services more closely approached the goal of finding permanent placement for children in foster care than the agency’s regular casework activity (Emlen et al., 1977). Other studies, notably the Alameda Project (Stein et al., 1978) have also shown that intensive services to biological parents are effective in removing children from temporary care and achieving permanent plans such as reunification or adopuon. Typical social work activity often does not recognize barriers ‘These factors reflect the kev components of planning. Kahn (1969) and Xlorris and Binstock (1966).
as formulated
bv theorists
such
as
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
227
involving caseworker, programming, and systemic issues that can impede the development of a permanency planning program. As these impediments are removed, permanency planning can become a regular rather than a special focus of practice. Caseworker Issues. Because caseworkers are the crucial instigaabout planning possibilities tors of permanency plans, “decisions for the foster child are a function of their information and optimism, their attitudes and opinions, their decisiveness and experience, and their perception of the constraints under which they operate” (Regional Research Institute, 1976). The Oregon Project, for example, discovered that caseworkers are less optimistic about permanency planning as the child gets older (Regional Research Institute, 1976). There is also evidence that the possibility of adoption of the older, handicapped, or minority child is dependent on the caseworker’s attitudes (Temporary State Commission on Child Welfare, 1977); the difficulty of placing severely handicapped children in adoptive homes leads practitioners to believe that permanency planning is not making a difference. It has also been found that caseworkers’ “on the job” experience is related to the type of permanent placement that they think should be encouraged. LVhile the inexperienced worker tends to favor adoption as an exit from foster care, the experienced worker is more likely to choose residential treatment, other foster family placements, or return of the child to the family (Regional Research Institute, 1976). The decision about a placement plan is thus affected by the variety of skills, educational background, and values of the worker; in addition, the process of implementing that decision may also be varied. Attitudes, experiences, skills, and background are influential factors in all steps of permanency planning. Programming Issues. Program and policy issues may appear as barriers when planning for permanency planning. For example, decisions need to be made about who should be participating in permanency planning-administration, staff, clients, as well as what the target population should be. The Oregon Project included children who were under the age of twelve: “Children over twelve . . . were not included in the project because older foster children were considered to present greater barriers to permanent placement” (Emlen et al., 1977, p. 20). Since more than 50% of all foster care children are twelve and over (Knitzer, Allen, & McGowan, 1978), there must be increased attention to the needs of older children. This presents a policy decision that must be made
228
Ward,
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
about the needs of older children in relation to the desirability of moving >.ounger children as quickl!, as possible. Caseload size. particularly the number of active cases, is a further consideration. The Oregon Project staff “became convinced that tvorkers cvere most effecti1.e i>.hen handling about fifteen cases at a time, although during the project the>, had as man:, as thirtv-five” (Emlen et al., 1977, p. 30). ;LIany caseworkers have caseloads much larger than this (Knitzer et al., 1978), and there is no clear evidence that caseload size is correlated Lt,ith outcomes such as permanence. Permanency planning calls for increased caseworker activity in tvorking l\.ith biological parents or w.orking to%\rards acloptlon (Drever, 1978). It also emphasizes planful activitv in non-crisis situations. Instead of maintaining a “roof over” the child, the Fvorker needs to plan and act for the future. This does not mean, however, that the total time spent on a case necessarily increases. It may well be that worker time and energies are used more efficiently once a clear objective and an explicit plan are formulated. The introduction of permanency planning as a deliberate approach further requires that there is an “expert” available to pass on knol\vledge to the caseivorkers. This suggests the need for trainand for flexible and open communication ing, for supervision, channels. Policy guidelines also are needed to reinforce permanency planning goals. Caseworkers are constantly faced with controversial issues such as: (a) il’hat are the criteria that determine l\,hether a child, who has been in care with one foster family for several years, should be permanently placed elsewhere? (b) Should a child currently placed i\ith elderly relatives (e.g., grandparents) be considered for a more permanent placement elservhere? If so, t%.hen should this placement occur? and (c) How is the value of “continuity of relationships” reconciled lvith the desire “to move a child and (give) that child a permanent legal home” (Krynow, 1979, p. 103). Case-by-case decisions will not encourage the development of a permanency planning philosophy. Systemic Issues. Other barriers to permanency planning that mav exist require changes not only in the foster care system, but alsd in the legal, adoptive, and social service spheres. For example, as caseworkers plan adoption for more foster children, expanded adoptive services or retooling of existing services will be needed. “Without staff and vigorous effort to place children with special needs. a bottleneck can develop” (Emlen et al., 1977, p. 116); more children may become available for adoption while the number of
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
229
remains the same. adoptive homes stilling to accept the children Though such a shortage of adoptive homes may be counteracted by active recruitment the number of available adoptive homes depends on the screening process for potential adoptive parents, the lvillingness of adoptive parents to accept the difficult-to-place child, and more flexible agency criteria for adoptive families. Another systemic issue is the recent emphasis on permanently placing a child back with his or her parent(s). Since as many as 32% of all foster children have been in temporary care for ttvo or more years (Knitzer et al., 1978), families lvill have difficult adjustments to make. Even if there \l.ere parental or sibling contacts with the child while in foster care, the situation is drasticallt altered t\.hen the biological family again becomes the permanent home for the child. The biological parent(s), siblings and foster child(ren) ma) need special services and a variety of social supports to cope and alleviate stressful problems. Furthermore. “much of this intensive r\,ork with families is for naught if adequate housing, income, da\ care and homemaker services cannot be obtained when needed” (Jones, 1976, p. lo).’ X further issue concerns the legal s!-stem. An increase in plans for adoption increase the need for legal assistance and court hearings. Lawyers and judges are being asked more often to make permanency decisions in which they may lack expertise (Emlen et al., 1977). As more caseworkers attempt to obtain termination of parental rights or establish adoption status, the court backlog stretches further. Studies have shown that “there were often delays in getting the hearing date set, summonses issued, and witnesses prepared, and further delays were caused by continuances, postthe time of hearing and anponements, and lon, u svaits between nouncement of the judge’s decision” (Emlen et al., 1977, p.61). The procurement of a permanent placement for a foster child is strongly dependent upon the legal system, its statutes, and its ability to process and enforce decisions. &lore effective relationships bettveen social agencies and judges and attorneys are therefore crucial. There are also problems in the area of funding. Until now, financial support for foster care has been more readily available than for preventive services, supportive programs for biological parents, or after care services (Knitzer et al., 19’78). This systemic barrier may have encouraged agencies to place a child in foster care as the most expedient solution to the family’s problem. It has been argued that public policy and service delivery in child ivelfare ‘See Maluccio and Sinanoglu biological parents of children
(I98 1) for extensive in foster care.
dircussion
of social
~\.ork practice
\\Gth
Ward,
230
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
reflect a deep anti-familv bias bv providing incenti\,es to agencies to keep children in foster care r&her than returning them to their biological families (Knitzer et al., 1978; Pare Cy:Torczyner, 1977). The funding problem may be alleviated as a result of the previously mentioned federal “Adoption Assistance and Child Flyelfare Act of 1980,” if sufficient funds are appropriatecl by the go\‘ernment. It is likelv, however, that tvavs uill still need to be found to influence fund&g bodies by demonstrating, for instance, the potential cost benefit of supportive services for parents. These and other caseworker, programming, and systemic issues should be considered in the planning process. Efforts to resolve them prior to program establishment allow for more time to deal with unexpected problems. Appreciating
the Operational
Context
It is crucial to evaluate the political, economic and social structure within which a program functions. In each of these areas, a number of questions may be posed that ha1.e relevance to the planning process. Political Factors-Power and Authority. While staff mai. be enthusiastic about permanency planning, the agency’s policies and guidelines may be supporting other priorities or programs that mitigate against the staff’s casekvork activities. Power and authorit! issues need to be recognized and handled. Among the questions t& be considered are: -FVhat is the present political power base of the administration; is it well-established, newlv formed, undergoing reorganization, reorganized? -How does the administration feel about change and innovative programs? -Are the goals of permanency planning compatible it.ith the goals set by the administration? -U’hat rank would permanency planning have among other priorities? --Who is/are in the best position to plan for permanent) planning? --Who is/are in the best position to organize for permanent) planning? -Who has the authority/power/influence to coordinate permanency planning among the varied social services? -Are there changes occurring in other service systems that may affect the implementation of permanency plans?
Permanency --\iVhen planning?
Planning is a good
231
in Foster Care time
to begin
establishing
permanent)
Economic Factors. Among the crucial funding questions are: -Can existing funds be reallocated to help support permanent planning efforts? -N’ill additional funds be needed for setting up or expanding the program? -Will further funds be needed throughout the life span of the program? --Will additional expenditure be offset by potential cost benefits, such as those that could result from discontinuing current non-productive activities and reducing the duration of foster care placements as well as the total number of children in care? --What are the chances of acquiring funds? ---What channels exist for securing funds? -For how long can funds be safely secured?
Numerous questions arise in respect to the soSocial Factors. cial structure in which a program must operate, such as: -How much agreement is there among workers that a problem exists in the foster care system? --What is the level of frustration, morale, and optimism of workers? -How receptive are ivorkers to making changes in their tvork patterns? --What should be the nature of change-rapid or incremental? -What is the level of resistance/commitment if one lvere to introduce permanency planning to workers? -How aware is the general public of the problems found in the foster care system? -How committed is the public to alleviating “drift” in foster care? -How strong are society’s values about parent-child ties? -How enthusiastic is the public for making changes? Evaluating
Available
Options
and Possible
Consequences
Decision-making and planning are not necessarilv orderly, rational processes. On the contrary, numerous factors influence the planning process. However, to the extent that is possible, establishing a program requires planful action that chooses among available options. Some of those that may be faced in permanency planning will be discussed below, to illustrate the planning process. This list
232
Ward,
Hamilton,
Fein
and Maluccio
is not exhaustive; other options may be assailable in a particular agency or community setting and need to be identified and etxluated before choices are made. I/t7hich children should be i,lz~olzled in permctr~enc~ planning? In implementing a permanency planning program, there are a number of options in regard to the target population: 1. All children in foster care. 2. Children of a specified age. 3. Children selected by date of entrv into the svstem. 4. Children included according to the number of cases that caseworkers/teams are able to handle. Though it may seem desirable to include all children in foster care, choosing a more specific target group may lead to expertise in planning for children who share a common bond (e.g., age, date of entry, handicap). A further consideration is whether permanency planning is already being done for relatively simple cases: if this 1s true, there may be a need to concentrate on the more difficult cases, although all cases may need further planning efforts. An>; option chosen should recognize that permanency planning may mcrease casetvorker time and activity per child. Each option also has implications for training of staff. For instance, if the client target group consists primarily of children whose restoration to the parents is unlikely, training relating to termination of parental rights is especially critical. Who should be trained in doing permanenq plannirlgl Training issues involve funding considerations as well as communication and information-sharing questions. Each of the following options has advantages and disadvantages: 1. A special unit of permanency planning F\-orkers created by reorganizing staff. 2. A special unit of permanency planning \\.orkers created by hiring additional staff. 3. All foster care workers. 4. Selected foster care Fvorkers. team. 5. A multidisciplinary By creating a special unit of permanency planning ivorkers through the reorganization of available staff, the need for initial training concerning agency policies and procedures is reduced. With this option, however, the unit is separated by tasks from other workers, which may lead to less information-sharing. The task of the responsibility of this special permanency planning remains
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
233
unit, and communication concerning permanence planning F\ith other service systems (adoptive, legal, t\.elfare, etc.j is limited to the permanencv planning unit’s contribution. If additional staff are hired in order to create a special unit, Neiv t\.orkers not familiar tt.ith additional funding is necessary. agency procedures will require’extra training. Their attitudes and values may differ from those already exposed to the foster care system and communication problems may result. The option of training all foster care i\.orkers bvould result in everyone having a common bond of knowledge, which would encourage permanency planning in every case. The validity of this option depends on the agency’s need for permanencv planning, the number of workers that lvould have to be trained, and time available for them to take on permanency planning responsibilities without letting other work activities suffer. Training only a selected group of workers would result in the difficulty of routing cases to a caseworker who may not be as visible as a separate permanency planning unit. The responsibility of implementing the permanent plan would fall on the worker hvho ma? have been chosen for exceptional skills, but at the same time it would place the task of referral on all case\vorkers. The last option, a multidisciplinary team, such as a permanency planning committee, l\.ould strengthen the “monitoring of foster care cases in a ivay that allows attention to the individual circumstances of the child and family” (Forsythe, 1979, p.4). Currently, both Tarant County, Texas (Grape, 1979) and several counties in North Dakota emphasize “a multidisciplinary and multi-agency approach” for implementing permanency planning (Schmid, 1979, p.5). “Team review of cases, moreover, offers caseworkers support and training and is a procedure that can bring the i\.orker re\vard for effort expended” (Forsythe, 1979, p.4). This approach also acts as a catalyst for coordinating different services within an agency as well as among different agencies. The availability of funds is an important influence on the decision of whether to expand or reorganize the staff in forming teams. Furthermore, a decision about the amount of communication and information-sharing desired can help determine whether the permanency planning team should be a special unit or a conglomerate of professionals. What kind of staff training is necessaq? There are at least five options to explore in the training area: 1. Training over a short period of time by outside consultant(s). 2. Training over a longer period of time by outside consultant(s).
234
Ward, Hamilton,
Fein and Maluccio
3.
Training over a short period of time by person(s) accessible lkithin own setting. 4. Training over a long period of time by person(s) accessible ikithin 0Ft.n setting. 5. Combining outside consultants tvith inside persons. The first four options are concerned \\.ith the time span of training. N’hile the shorter time allows for more intensive training, the longer period provides \\.orkers with the opportunity to begm using permanency planning techniques and bring up questions at later training sessions. The advantages of either time span depend on the urgency of developing or expanding the permanency planning program. Whether the permanency planning “expert” who is providing the teaching resources is an outside consultant to the program or someone wthin the system can affect the availability of information and consultation. N’hile the person within the system may have a good background in agency policies, he or she may also have other responsibilities (e.g., for his/her olvn caseload) or constraints (e.g., be’ing defined by his/her present position in the present system) that may hamper the permanency planning task. The consultant, on the other hand, may only be available at particular times, but may have more familiarity Fvith a variety of systems and options and prior experience in the process of implementing permanency planning. Underlying all the options is the importance of identifywithin reach, from ivithin as \\.ell as outside the ing the “experts” agency. Training should be addressed not only to knowledge and skills, but also to attitudinal and value issues. For example, it should be emphasized that permanency planning means a commitment to strong efforts to reunite child and parents before alternative plans are considered. How encouraged?
can
system-wide,
in&a-agency
coordination
be
The number of people responsible for coordinating services within an agency system is of critical importance. The) influence the amount of direct communication and informationsharing possible. The two options are: 1. hlultidisciplinary team. 2. Intra-agency manager/coordinator. The multidisciplinary team approach can provide “a good foundation for coordinating and implementing some new programs” (Schmid, 1979, p. 1). It encourages a variety of professionals to work together to implement permanency plans and allot\.s them to confer with other colleagues about their experiences. It
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
235
also increases the likelihood of changes within the other service ststems outside the agency, since those on the team who work v(ithin those systems have esperiences that suggest the need for change. The intra-agency manager/coordinator, on the other hand, staff position that most typically would be fillin, u a newlv created may require time to gain familiarity viith procedures and policies, establish rapport with the workers and administrators, and anticipate ways of completing tasks. Change vvithin the agency would be highfy dependent on communication skills; the managericoordinator would need to be highly visible to those workers seeking assistance, and the implementatton of permanency plans would be the result of the manager/coordinator successfully carrying out appropriate tasks. Hou are total sewices increased? Due to the nature of permanency planning, expanded services often need to be provided. Along with consideration of reallocation of resources and discontinuance of unproductive activities, possibilities for increasing the variety of services are: 1. Increase staff (adoptive, legal, welfare . . . ). 2. Increase coordination among agencies in order to decrease duplication. 3. Decide the priority of services to be provided. Hiring more staff requires additional training and superv.ision, as well as increased funding. The second option, of using time more efficiently bv better coordination, assumes that there 1s duplication of services. The third choice, of providing only certain services, frees more time but forces consideration of two questions: (1) Are the services provided absolutely necessary? and (2) Are the services given by those who are most competent?
Summary
and Conclusions
Recommendations about implementing permanency planning need to take into account the relevant caseworker, programming, and systemic issues along with the political, economic, and social structures that constitute the operational context. Decisions about which options are most suitable should reflect v\.hat is feasible and acceptable to a particular situation. Once long-range goals are established and then described in manageable, progressive steps apt to promote successful program implementation, care must be taken to maintain continual Aexibility in case procedures and policies in the event of unexpected
236
Ward, Hamilton,
Fein and Maluccio
situations. In this sense. permanency planning is an ongoing process subject to continual review and change. Furthermore, both staff and the general public need to understand the reasons for permanency planning and to believe that it is a viable solution. Resistance to change has been found to be “least in the groups in which those to be affected discussed the nature of the change, laid plans for making it, and as a total group made decisions which were satisfactory to the entire group” (Zander, 1970, p.235). Because of the scope of action and services that permanency planning covers, it is important to consider whether there is enough motivation to follow through on such a program, not only within the agency but also in the broader communitv. Successful permanency planning involves ongoing coordinated efforts by practitioners, foster parent organizations, biological parents groups, service systems, and society in general to plan for and implement actions that allow more children to grow up in homes providing continuity and stabiliby. It is not a simple, read?;made program applicable to any situation, but is one that necessltates serious thought and commitment. Indeed, “permanency plan(Krymo’c~‘, 1979, p.103), but is ning . . . is not easily achieved” \sGthin reach if one has time, commitment, and resources to plan and implement effectively. References Downs,
S. M’. Foster
Dissemination
cure
reform
in the 70’s:
Final
report
Project.
Portland, OR: Regional State C‘niversity, 198 1.
of the Permanenc_y
Research
Institute
for
Planning H~~rnan
Services, Portland Dreyer, L. Permanent planning in foster care-.4 guide fur program planners. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1978. Emlen, A., Lahti, J., Dolvns. G., 5lcKay, A., &z Dottms, S. Oz~ew~vling barriers to planning for children in foster care. Portland. OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1977. Fanshel, D., S: Shinn, E. B. Children infoster care--.-i longitudinal ixcrsti,gatiotr. NeF\ York: Columbia University Press. 1978. Forsythe, P. As quoted in Case Record, November 1979, 3, 4. Grape, H. Fort JVorth’s permanent planning team. Cuse Record, 1979, 3, 3-4. Jones, hl. A. Reducing foster care through serz’ices to families. Children Todq, 1976* 5, 6-10.
Jones,
hl. L., & Biesecker,
nency planning
guide for
J, Goal planning children
and Jouth
in children
and wuth ser,aicrs and PermrcAlillersvile, PA: Training Re(TRIPP), hIillersville State College,
services.
sources in Permanent Planning Project 1979. Jones, M. L. Stopping foster care drift: A review grams. Child N’elfare, 37, 1978, 371-580.
of legislation
and special
pro-
Permanency
Planning
in Foster Care
237
Knitzer, J., Allen. AI. L., k XlcGowan. B. CMtlw~ r~/~hou~/wtnu~. it’ashington. D.C.: Children’s Defense Fund, 1978. Krymow, V. L. Obstacles encountered in permanent planning for foster children. Child I\‘e+r~, 1979, 48, 97-104. Lahti. J.. Green, K., Emlen. A.. Zadny, J., Clarkson, Q., Kuehnel. XI.. & Cnsciato, J. A[oUowr$ jtr$v o/the Oregon Project. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1978. Xlaluccio, A. X., Fein. E., Hamilton. J., Klier, J. L.. K_ \Vard, D. Beyond permanency planning. Child Lt’elfure, 19S0, 59. 5 155Y0. Maluccio. A. S., & Sinanoglu. P. .I. (Eds.). The chcdlenge ofpartnership_Cl'orking with parents of children in fo.rter cure. Sew York: Child LVelfare League of America, 1991. Morris, R., iy- Binstock, R. Fecwble planning for social chmge. Sew York and London: Columbia University Press, 1966. Pare, A., & Torczyner, J. The interests of children and the interests of the state: Rethinking the conflict betrveen child welfare policy and foster care practice. Jourrlal of Sociolog and Social IVelfnf-e, 197i. 4, 124-L-1245. Pike, V. Permanent plannin g for foster children: The Oregon Project. Children Todq, 1976, i, 22-23341. Regional Research Institute for Human Services. Barriers to plarlnirlg for chi/dren in foster care. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 1976. Schmid, D. Sorth Dakota’s permanency planning committees. CUM Record, 1979, 3, 4-6. Stein, T. J., Gambrill, E. D., & \\Itse, K. T. Children in foster homes-.Achieuiy continrutv of care. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975. Temporari State Commission on Child \\‘elfare. The children of the state--lncentisres to ndoptiue placements. Report Submitted to Kerv York State Governor and Legislature bp Hon. Joseph Pisani, Chairman, February, 1977. Zander. A. Resistance to change. In H. A. Schatz (Ed.), Sociul work adminutral~on. New York: Council on Social \\‘ork Education. 1970.